As you guys know, I am a newby here and although I have 40 years experience in nature observation I know next to nothing about what hunters want from their bins.

From different sources I have gleaned the following:

Some hunters don't focus much and once they have set the focus, they don't want it to move unintentionally. So a stiff focus and a slow geared one seems necessary for this. I can imagine sitting in a hunting tower overlooking a clearing or waterhole and the hunter focusing the bins while there is still enough light and then just wanting to lift it up now and then as the light gets dimmer in the evening to take a look. At some point focusing becomes impossible in the twilight so I can see where this is coming from.

Other folks say hunters don't need a big FOV but I would think it depends on the sort of hunting being done. Deer stalking in Scotland (or the Rockies?) would appear to involve scanning big areas of mountain side so I would have thought a big FOV would be useful.

OK guys, put me right. What specifications and features do hunters want from their bins?

some hunters like slight color enhancements where animals stand out more than they normally would from the foliage around them.... also a good depth of field...

Hi Gunny

What about hunters going after goats and similar stuff on rocky mountain sides. Wouldn't an artificial colour that is useful in scrub and woods/woodland edges be bad for them?

Depth of field is magnification-dependent (and to a certain extent on the observer's accomodation, or the degree to which the oberserver's eye can refocus on different distances for example the far side and near side of the true depth of field) so not much that can be done about that.

Almost everything in optics is a tradeoff. It is a fact that
binoculars with ruby coated lens (if coated at the right thickness) will bring
out a brown deer against a green foliage background better than the same bino
coated with MgF2. BUT, it will slightly reduce the effective aperture, which
some people choose to see as a real bugbear.

And then, if they’re really beneficial (which I have never
seen), why do we see that Zeiss, Leica, and Swarovski don’t offer them in their
lineups. Is it because their knowledge of optics lags behind the Asian startups
that offer them? Or, are they offered by the Asians because they have learned
through 80 years of empirical experience that westerners believe everything
they read so they don’t have to chip a nail doing their own research?

"However elegant the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.—Winston Churchill

Almost everything in optics is a tradeoff. It is a fact that
binoculars with ruby coated lens (if coated at the right thickness) will bring
out a brown deer against a green foliage background better than the same bino
coated with MgF2. BUT, it will slightly reduce the effective aperture, which
some people choose to see as a real bugbear.

And then, if they’re really beneficial (which I have never
seen), why do we see that Zeiss, Leica, and Swarovski don’t offer them in their
lineups. Is it because their knowledge of optics lags behind the Asian startups
that offer them? Or, are they offered by the Asians because they have learned
through 80 years of empirical experience that westerners believe everything
they read so they don’t have to chip a nail doing their own research?

As you say Bill, optics is a tradeoff. Score a goal over here, lose one over there.

Design your hunting bins for forest work, you hack off those that hunt in different habitats and lose out on the possibillity of birders buying your hunting bins too.

As far as binoculars go, the needs of the hunter are not terribly different from those of a birder. I've been talkign to hunters about this for the last fifteen years.

Low light performance is critical. Same for contrast. Edge performance is not that huge a deal, so I would go for a wider FOV even if it costs some edge performance.

The focusing knob does not need to do anything terribly extravagant, setting the gears for mid-to-slightly fast speed is your best bet.

Coatings that help pick out certain colors are useful, but other than Steienr nobody has really done all that much with that concept and if the binocular has good microcontrast, I would not worry about it too much.

With optics, perception and the power of suggestion rule—pity, really. People talk so much about depth of field as if it is a nebulous thing often related to brands; it’s not at all. Mathematically, it deals with focal length and distance to the target—period. Ah, but physiologically. Well, that’s a different ball game. One observer might talk about his bino's great depth of field while his friend finds it’s not that good.

Observer #1 has a dioptric accommodation of 4. Observer #2 has one of 1.5. People spend SO much time quibbling over mechanical things, when the problem might have nothing to do with mechanics.

Following is a snippet from my vignette on that “auto-focus” bull that started in the 90s and still haunts the more cranially challenged.

Despite what you have read or been told, there are no non-electronic auto-focus binoculars.

“But how can that be; I saw it myself?” Answer:The power of suggestion.

Years ago I made a bent-nail puzzle and gave it to a friend to tinker with while we talked. Figuring it out in short order, I grabbed the puzzle, turned my back, put it back together, and gave it to him again saying, “Okay, hotdog, let’s see you get this one apart as fast; I put it together backwards.” Although we continued talking for quite a while, he couldn’t figure it out.

The puzzle only worked oneway. Thus it couldn’t have been put together “backwards.” Yet, the power of suggestion caused him to flounder.

Edited by WJC - January/12/2017 at 14:03

"However elegant the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.—Winston Churchill

I tend to lean more towards compact, light, moderate power optics, which seems to go against the "more is better" trend I see.

To me, my Leica Ultravid HD 8x32 bino defines perfection. It has excellent image quality, with outstanding resolution, and my eyes prefer Leica's design philosophy as it pertains to contrast. It really excels at flare suppression, among the best I've seen, even when viewing toward sunlight at dusk. Leica made some welcome improvements in focused smoothness from the original HD models on, and I've got no complaints there. I really like Leica's approach to setting barrel diopters too.

The size and weight are perfect. I'm willing to trade a slight reduction in ultimate low light performance for the reduced size and weight, so 32mm objectives are a good compromise in 8x. Still, I don't sacrifice much low light performance, as the UV 8x32 still takes me past the limits of legal shooting hours where I hunt. 8x is my favored magnification, because it provides just enough detail with generous FOV, with fairly expansive depth of field that I don't need to change focus as much as with 10x. It also minimizes hand tremor, which is beneficial in a midsize 32mm roof prism bino. I just think 8x32 is an ideal compromise of everything. I think you really need 42mm or larger objectives to get the full benefit from 10x.

The hydrophobic lens coating is frosting on an already delicious cake! I've found that extremely useful in keeping my lenses clear in rainy weather.

The ONLY thing I would change about my 8x32 UV HD bino is the price tag. With the significant advances in $1k class binos, in spite of how much I love it, I'm not sure I'd spend Leica $ if I was shopping for new binos today.

Ted

Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.

I once dropped a 12-point, in a heavy wind, at 800 yards, with a single shot from my Marlin 336. But, just as I was about to reach my trophy, the alarm went off and I had to get up and get ready for ... work!

"However elegant the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.—Winston Churchill

Damn nice buck JG! As it so happens, I'm sitting in a blind, using the aforementioned Leica 8x32, whitetail hunting in south TX, SW of Falfurrias right now as I type this. Which means I'm shutting my phone down now.

Ted

Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.

Damn nice buck JG! As it so happens, I'm sitting in a blind, using the aforementioned Leica 8x32, whitetail hunting in south TX, SW of Falfurrias right now as I type this. Which means I'm shutting my phone down now.

South Texas... Got a really nice nilgai in Kennedy County a few years ago. Must go back.

Excellent buck JG.

Lee, good thread. I'm as much a nature observer as a hunter... Birds, squirrels, bobcats, coyotes and leaves of different shapes, sizes and colors keep me entertained until deer emerge. Such observation has yielded an appreciation for good glass, in rifle scopes., absolutely but even more so with my binocular.

I value low light capabilities above all else, however, excellent color rendition and a sharp image are a close second. Wf

Thanks for the Good Luck Wishes, fellas. I didn't score yesterday eve. Best buck I saw was a main frame 8 that might have gone 120, not what I'm after in this country. I'm here until mid day Sun, so the hunt is still young.

Back to the bino feature wishlist, I agree with JG on the focusing speed. I want sufficiently fine thread that I can easily hit a precise focus without overshooting the focus. It doesn't necessarily have to be a super fine pitch focuser, I just don't like the fast focus where half a turn takes you from 10 yds to infinity. Too easy to overshoot crisp focus with that, especially if wearing gloves. One of the reasons I like 8x so much is that the hyperfocal distance is close enough that I can set focus for a fairly short distance and objects out to infinity are still reasonably focused enough that I don't have to do much focus adjustment throughout the hunt.

It also has to be tough. It's gonna get dropped and bumped many times.

I want binos like Luke had in Star Wars, they zoom in on my target, have perfect clarity, show azimuth at the bottom, and have lots of electronic swirls and circles and distracting crap to draw my attention away from the actual thing I want to see.

Rifledude, good luck. I love south Texas hunting, should be there now, but alas, life gets in the way.

I'm no expert on binos and just bought a pair of 8X30 porro cf to get into wildlife viewing please note tis in regards to my opinions.

I was a very good hunter who preferred peep sights in the boreal forest, open prairie and badlands, and the Rockie's east face and my favorite the bush in the foothills. I bought some cheap 7X35 years ago, first of three binoculars. They were porroos with a plate on the focus adjuster to make focusing easier, not my favorite feature. They supplied a need as it became necessary to judge antlers later in my hunting to decide if game was legal at a distance.

My opinion since researching and buying a 8X30 porro for general use. Fine focus makes things jump out of the bush so normal focal depth is ok. 8X is my max. If I still hunted I would prefer a 7X35 or 6X30 for the 5MM exit pupil. A decent field of view is a requirement for hunting IMO. Hunting stuff to look at happens in low light. I shake too much for anything higher than 8X. My old 7X35 met my hunting needs perfectly. I once stalked and followed a grizzly and two cubs across a wide ravine for an afternoon in a high mountain saddle. Still my fondest hunting memory even though no way I would shoot her. The bidget 7X35s worked for my needs.

They matched my needs. I suggest this as the main decision driving any hunter. A pair fine tuned to work in three different African nations, a possible Antelope hunt in Colorado, a coastal bear hunt in BC, etc, seems to be dubius economy. Specially if I hunt often every year in upper Michigan for deer and coyotes.

Been away from here for a few days, nice to see a familiar name show up. Welcome to OT. You will not find Dennis here.

I have said on BF several times that I see no basic difference between a birding and a hunting binocular. Note I agree with Bill about perceptions.

Good low light performance comes in handy. I may not use it a lot, but it can be a deal maker. If in denser stuff, I tend to like a bit of a warm color balance. Otherwise I like color neutral with proper color rendition and excellent contrast. Dedicated hunting binoculars can be slower on focus than birding ones. We tend to look at that pile of brush patch over there a lot and the idea is to sort out the buck that may or may not be there. Slow focus can let you roll through the different depths somewhat easier. However the key is to use a binocular you are familiar with. I could care less about the flat field, but don't want excessive curvature or distortion at the edge either. I do a lot of birding when I'm hunting. Actions of other animals can tell quite a tale if one is observant about what is going on.

You are well aware of the idea of the overall size differences of a
larger vs a smaller field, and peripheral vision is pretty useful. I don't need a particularly wide field, but it is something I will take when choosing between two glasses. I want one that fits my hands and face, particularly around the eyes and one that carries well and does not weigh a lot. Weight is more important to a hunter as we tend to have more gear than a birder, or at least some birders.

Cheers

Steve C

Steve"Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted". William Bruce Cameron

Wide FOV is the first spec. I look for. Movement when sitting in a stand needs to be kept to a minimum. Second is weight. If I am carrying a pack, a climbing stand and a rifle, I am concerned about weight. Third is low light capability as good as or slightly better than my scope.

Been away from here for a few days, nice to see a familiar name show up. Welcome to OT. You will not find Dennis here.

I have said on BF several times that I see no basic difference between a birding and a hunting binocular. Note I agree with Bill about perceptions.

Good low light performance comes in handy. I may not use it a lot, but it can be a deal maker. If in denser stuff, I tend to like a bit of a warm color balance. Otherwise I like color neutral with proper color rendition and excellent contrast. Dedicated hunting binoculars can be slower on focus than birding ones. We tend to look at that pile of brush patch over there a lot and the idea is to sort out the buck that may or may not be there. Slow focus can let you roll through the different depths somewhat easier. However the key is to use a binocular you are familiar with. I could care less about the flat field, but don't want excessive curvature or distortion at the edge either. I do a lot of birding when I'm hunting. Actions of other animals can tell quite a tale if one is observant about what is going on.

You are well aware of the idea of the overall size differences of a
larger vs a smaller field, and peripheral vision is pretty useful. I don't need a particularly wide field, but it is something I will take when choosing between two glasses. I want one that fits my hands and face, particularly around the eyes and one that carries well and does not weigh a lot. Weight is more important to a hunter as we tend to have more gear than a birder, or at least some birders.

Cheers

Steve C

Hi Steve, great to meet you on here too. The main difference that seems to emerge concerns focusing speed. Based on this very small sample of replies, a modest speed of focus is definitely on the hunter's wish-list. I can understand the wish for light weight. I don't carry a scope and tripod much but often have a DSLR and three lenses as well as food and drink and wet weather gear. It all adds up so you trim it where you can.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum